throbber
Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 17
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`*
`PARKERVISION, INC.
`April 10, 2023
`*
`
`*
`VS.
` * CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:22-CV-1162
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR
`*
` CORP.
`*
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`MOTIONS HEARING (via Zoom)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Zachary H. Ellis, Esq.
`The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
`100 Congress Ave, Ste 2000
`Austin, TX 78701
`Ronald M. Daignault, Esq.
`Daignault Iyer LLP
`8618 Westwood Center Drive, Ste 150
`Vienna, VA 22182
`Mark Siegmund, Esq.
`Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC
`The Roosevelt Tower
`400 Austin Avenue, 9th Floor
`Waco, Texas 76701
`Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`(254) 340-6114
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 17
`
`2
`
`(Hearing begins.)
`DEPUTY CLERK: A civil action in Case
`6:22-CV-1162, ParkerVision, Incorporated versus Realtek
`Semiconductor Corp. Case called for a motions hearing.
`THE COURT: Announcements from counsel,
`
`please.
`
`MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon and a belated
`happy Easter, Your Honor. This is Zak Ellis, along
`with Ron Daignault for plaintiff ParkerVision.
`THE COURT: And happy Easter to you as
`
`well.
`
`MR. SIEGMUND: Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. Mark Siegmund specially appearing on behalf of
`defendant Realtek.
`THE COURT: Okay. Anyone else?
`MR. SIEGMUND: That's it, Your Honor.
`
`Just me.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. My understanding is
`that the issue is whether or not ParkerVision has
`effectuated service under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 4(f)(2)(C)(ii), one of my favorite sections
`of the Rules of Federal Procedure.
`And it's my understanding that if they
`have not done so and they've gotten a signed receipt,
`then they have not adequately served. I think that's
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:29
`
`01:29
`
`01:29
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:30
`
`01:31
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 17
`
`3
`
`the issue. So I'll hear first from the plaintiff.
`MR. SIEGMUND: Your Honor, if I might, my
`understanding, and I'm -- plaintiff is -- feel free to
`disagree with me. But I thought we were actually here
`for plaintiff's motion for entry of default. Because
`they had actually filed a motion to withdraw or a
`motion for alternative service. Unless we're just both
`saying the same thing. But that was my understanding.
`MR. ELLIS: That's a different thing.
`So I think what Your Honor's asking is
`just has plaintiff effectively served under
`4(f)(2)(C)(ii).
`THE COURT: Correct.
`(Simultaneous conversation.)
`THE COURT: -- service.
`MR. ELLIS: Right. So yeah. Your Honor,
`the answer is yes. And we have a signed receipt from
`FedEx that -- well, here's the story of what happened.
`So we served defendant back in December.
`The clerk sent copy of the summons and complaint via
`FedEx to defendant.
`They're a Taiwanese corporation. Taiwan
`has not prohibited that service. The
`State Department even says on the travel.state.gov
`website that Taiwan defendants can be served through
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:30
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:31
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 4 of 17
`
`4
`
`4(f)(2)(C)(i) via FedEx.
`FedEx shows up to defendant's
`headquarters. They deliver to the receptionist desk
`and FedEx files a proof of delivery. It says
`"delivered" with a checkmark.
`It was delivered to someone at
`defendant's headquarters named R. Fan. That is a prima
`facie case that they were effectively served, if we
`were under -- if they had filed a 12(b) motion and we
`were arguing about this.
`But as Mr. Siegmund pointed out, this is
`just about default. And so based on the record that we
`have and without any affidavits or other evidence on
`defendant's side, it's a resounding yes, That defendant
`was properly served under 4(f)(2)(C)(ii).
`THE COURT: A response to that?
`MR. SIEGMUND: Yes, Your Honor. Thank
`you. Mark Siegmund on behalf of the defendant.
`So we do disagree that service was
`proper. Under Taiwanese law, there's only one way to
`affect proper service, and that's through letters
`rogatory.
`
`Another plaintiff in the Eastern District
`of Texas who filed a complaint only a week or two after
`the plaintiff in this case did serve by via letters
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:32
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 5 of 17
`
`5
`
`rogatory and service was effectuated proper. Realtek
`answered in March of this year.
`They didn't do that here. What they did
`is they just mailed a copy of the complaint via FedEx
`to Realtek, which is improper under Taiwanese law.
`Furthermore, we also very much dispute
`that service was even effectuated even assuming that
`that type of service was not prohibited. And if you
`actually look at the FedEx record, which I'm happy to
`pull up if Your Honor would like to, on Monday
`December 19th, the record's pretty clear that that's
`when it arrived at the FedEx facility. It was
`supposedly brought to Realtek where it says
`"delivered."
`
`But then on the very same day, Your
`Honor, it said it was back at the FedEx delivery
`location. And then the next couple of days they tried
`to keep on serving Realtek. And there's a notation
`that says service refused. Because service is improper
`under that method under Taiwanese law.
`So we -- first and foremost, we
`absolutely dispute the fact that Realtek was served.
`And as Your Honor knows, under In Re: OnePlus and its
`progeny coming from this Court after that, is a
`plaintiff is supposed to attempt to properly serve the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:33
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 6 of 17
`
`6
`
`defendant first. And then if something happens where
`service can't be effectuated under proper means,
`alternative service is an appropriate remedy.
`In this case the plaintiff didn't do
`that. They moved for alternative service. We
`responded to that motion. The briefing is now
`complete.
`
`But then ParkerVision, for whatever
`reason, decided to withdraw that motion and it is now
`saying that we are in default because we haven't
`otherwise defended this action. Which I think is me
`sitting here before the Court arguing this very thing
`simply is inaccurate. We have otherwise defended this
`action. And the motion for entry of default is
`procedurally and legally completely improper.
`I can give you three reasons why you
`should deny the motion for entry of default, Your
`Honor. I'll start with the easiest one: We are
`otherwise defending the action. All the law requires
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is simply
`that.
`
`Actually, under the Fifth Circuit it even
`requires a whole lot less than what we've done in this
`case. It just requires phone calls and e-mails
`suggesting that service wasn't proper.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:34
`
`01:34
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:35
`
`01:36
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 7 of 17
`
`7
`
`Here we've actually opposed their
`alternative service motion as well as opposed the
`motion for entry of default, which is what I thought
`this hearing was about here today. So we've certainly
`met the "otherwise defended" standard under the Fifth
`Circuit law and under the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure.
`
`And then secondly, as I just discussed,
`Your Honor, service was not proper. The only proper
`way to do that recognized under Taiwanese law is via
`letters rogatory. And under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) it has to not be prohibited by
`the foreign country's laws. This one is.
`So specifically, Your Honor, counsel
`mentioned the State Department website. Well, if you
`actually read what the State Department website says it
`says, it says very clearly in a disclaimer that this
`information is for general purposes only and the
`information may not be accurate.
`And later on in the very website it says
`that Taiwan likely does not actually recognize this
`type of service. So even on the evidence that the
`plaintiff relies on it's not entirely true. I mean, it
`was general information from the website.
`And then third and finally, Your Honor,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:36
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 8 of 17
`
`8
`
`you should deny the motion for entry of default because
`it's procedurally improper. At the time they filed
`their motion for entry of default, the alternative
`service motion was pending and awaiting a ruling from
`this Court. And I think that that's just entirely
`procedurally improper under the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure.
`
`So I think that's pretty much all I have,
`Your Honor, unless you have specific questions for me.
`THE COURT: I do not.
`Anything else from plaintiff?
`MR. ELLIS: Sure.
`Number one, we're not in Taiwan. We're
`not following Taiwanese law here; we're following
`U.S. law.
`
`And we have a page and a half of case
`cites in our reply brief in support of our default --
`motion for entry of default of courts, including this
`one, finding that Taiwan does not prohibit service the
`way we did it.
`And we didn't send anything. The Clerk
`of Court sent service to Taiwan and sent the FedEx to
`Realtek's headquarters, where FedEx had a delivery
`confirmation and it was effected at the front desk or
`the receptionist area there.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:37
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 9 of 17
`
`9
`
`So we would refer the Court to our reply
`brief to see that time and time again the way we did it
`was proper under the federal rules.
`And what it sounds like defendant wants
`is it wants the Court to say, the only way to serve a
`Taiwanese company or defendant is through letters
`rogatory. And that is just simply not true based on
`all the case law that we cited.
`Several of the cases of which we sent to
`the defendant and notified them that their position was
`legally improper, and they chose to file a response in
`opposition anyway and didn't cite any of those cases to
`the Court. That's a separate issue.
`If you look at our reply brief, we can
`see that letters rogatory is not the only way to serve
`a Taiwanese company. They're not a member of the
`Hague. And they -- the law in Taiwan does not prohibit
`the way that we served them, which was through the
`Clerk of Court sending via international registered
`mail with a return receipt that we filed with the Court
`in our acknowledgement of service back in December.
`You know, it's been 82 days since
`defendant was supposed to file. They could have filed
`a 12(b) motion and raised this issue. They chose not
`to, and now they're specially appearing to argue this
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:38
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 10 of 17
`
`10
`
`very narrow issue instead of addressing the merits.
`We think that's also improper and
`default, you know, is the proper remedy here where --
`THE COURT: Let me interrupt you for a
`
`second.
`
`Mr. Siegmund, let's say I deny your
`motion. What is the next step the defendant takes?
`MR. SIEGMUND: So just to confirm, Your
`Honor, let's say that you deny the motion for entry of
`default. Is that --
`THE COURT: Correct.
`MR. SIEGMUND: Okay.
`(Simultaneous conversation.)
`THE COURT: -- case just sit around
`
`forever.
`
`MR. SIEGMUND: No. I mean, all they have
`to do is -- Your Honor, if they had served letters
`rogatory in November, we would have already been served
`and we would have moved on in this case.
`I mean, I can cite you to the case in the
`Eastern District where that literally happened. And it
`was actually pretty darn fast. I mean, it was within
`60 days. So that would have been the proper thing for
`them to do. And had they done that, we wouldn't even
`be here. It wouldn't even be an issue. So I think
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:39
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 11 of 17
`
`11
`
`that would be the proper method.
`And to address the point, Your Honor, is
`the very long list of cases they cited in the reply
`brief. They're conflating actual proper service with
`when courts granted alternative service. And what we
`are saying is under normal service what they did is not
`proper under Taiwanese law, meaning it's not proper
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
`If the Court granted alternative service,
`well, I mean, the Court has that power, but we would
`also suggest that under the Court's current guidance it
`shouldn't do that, because they didn't attempt proper
`service first and then come back to the Court for
`alternative service. And that's the In Re: OnePlus
`opinion from the Federal Circuit.
`All of your cases since that time, Your
`Honor, have required an attempt of proper service first
`before alternative service. And I've been on that side
`of the fangs and I didn't necessarily like it, but
`that's the way the case law is.
`So I think if you deny the motion for
`entry of default, plaintiff should go through proper
`service. And if for some crazy reason proper service
`doesn't happen, then they can seek alternative means of
`service.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:40
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 12 of 17
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: See, I seem a lot fairer when
`you're on that side of the table.
`(Laughter.)
`THE COURT: Don't I?
`Anything else the plaintiff wants to say?
`MR. ELLIS: Sure.
`We're not conflating alternative service.
`That's 4(f)(2)(iii). We served under 4(f)(2)(ii).
`Alternative service is when the Court, you know, grants
`either service via e-mail on counsel or sending
`registered mail to counsel. We're not conflating
`those.
`
`We're under a very specific method of
`service that we don't need the Court to approve
`beforehand. And time and -- again, a page and a half
`of cases that -- including this district, including the
`Western District of Texas, that find that this is
`proper.
`
`And I don't think, Your Honor, that he
`answered your question of what's going to happen next.
`You know, our concern is, if we don't get a default,
`that they a file a 12(b) motion and we're back in front
`of Your Honor having the same argument.
`I think default is proper here to put an
`end to that when they could have done this a long time
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:41
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 13 of 17
`
`13
`
`ago, back in the beginning of the year.
`So, you know, we would understand, as an
`alternative, denying our motion without prejudice and
`maybe giving defendant, you know, seven days to file an
`answer or an order that specifically -- with an order
`that specifically states service was proper.
`We think that could be fair, because we
`know that the Court doesn't favor going the default
`route. But just the circumstances of this case, you
`know, we're advocating for default first and foremost.
`THE COURT: I think what I heard
`Mr. Siegmund saying, at least between the lines, was
`that if you were to -- if the plaintiff were to go the
`route of letters rogatory, that that would be the
`correct method to do it. And if that were
`unsuccessful, then you could come to me for alternative
`service.
`
`And his opinion is, the way I interpret
`it is, plaintiff has failed to do -- take that step;
`therefore, it would be inappropriate for me at this
`point to allow for alternative service.
`That's the way I interpret it.
`MR. SIEGMUND: That's correct, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`MR. ELLIS: I can address that directly,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:42
`
`01:42
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:43
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 14 of 17
`
`14
`
`that we did not serve -- we did not need to serve
`through letters rogatory because we're not required to.
`Service by FedEx under 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) is
`a proper method of service. We don't need the Court's
`approval.
`
`It's different than alternative service.
`You know, alternative service, again, is 4(f)(2)(iii).
`4(f)(2)(ii) is the Clerk of the Court sending via
`registered mail return receipt, and that's the way we
`did it. And yeah.
`THE COURT: If you give me one second.
`(Pause in proceedings.)
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me see if I can
`adequately make both sides unhappy today.
`First off, I'm going to deny the request
`for default. If for no other reason than I agree with
`Mr. Siegmund that it's hard to enter default when
`they've got a lawyer sitting here. I don't think that
`would last very long in the federal system.
`However, because -- and I get he's here
`by special appearance. But because defendant has
`counsel and because I think that the plaintiff has at
`least attempted to serve the defendant in good faith,
`and because I think that I'd like to get this case
`going because of how long it's been around --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:44
`
`01:45
`
`01:45
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 15 of 17
`
`15
`
`Mr. Siegmund, what do you think would be
`a fair period of time if I were to order you or counsel
`to accept service as an alternative service, what do
`you think a fair time would be? 30 days?
`MR. SIEGMUND: I think that's about
`right, Your Honor. Your standard under your OGP.
`THE COURT: Okay. So I'm going to order
`the alternative service by the plaintiff on
`Mr. Siegmund on behalf of the -- his client. And it
`will be effective in 30 days. And that will give
`Mr. Siegmund an opportunity to communicate with his
`client. And they can get to work on coming up with an
`answer or a motion or whatever.
`MR. SIEGMUND: And, Your Honor, if I
`might, and I'm not arguing with your ruling, but I did
`just want to make sure the record's clear that there is
`no pending alternative service motion. It was
`withdrawn as agreement by the parties.
`So this would be a sua sponte --
`THE COURT: It is.
`MR. SIEGMUND: Okay. Got it. Thank you.
`THE COURT: Okay. Anything else,
`
`Counsel?
`
`Your Honor.
`
`MR. ELLIS: Nothing else. Thank you,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:46
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 16 of 17
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: I'm trying to be very
`Solomon-like. And so anything else we need to take up?
`MR. SIEGMUND: Not from defendant, Your
`Honor. Thank you.
`THE COURT: From plaintiff?
`MR. ELLIS: Nothing for plaintiff, Your
`Honor. Thanks.
`THE COURT: You guys have a good
`afternoon. Take care.
`(Hearing adjourned.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:47
`
`01:48
`
`01:48
`
`01:48
`
`01:48
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 37 Filed 04/14/23 Page 17 of 17
`
`17
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`)
`
`I, Kristie M. Davis, Official Court
`Reporter for the United States District Court, Western
`District of Texas, do certify that the foregoing is a
`correct transcript from the record of proceedings in
`the above-entitled matter.
`I certify that the transcript fees and
`format comply with those prescribed by the Court and
`Judicial Conference of the United States.
`Certified to by me this 14th day of April
`
`2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kristie M. Davis
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS
`Official Court Reporter
`800 Franklin Avenue
`Waco, Texas 76701
`(254) 340-6114
`kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`01:48
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket